APHC010195872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3395] MONDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 219/2025 Between: 1. KONDETI NAGABHUSHANAM,, S/O. LATE SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, R/O. D.NO. 20-140- 219-3, ETIGADDALAPALEM ROAD, MSR ROAD, PUNGANUR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. T RADHAKRISHNA, S/O. T.MALLIKARJUNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. LAND LORD, R/O. D.NO.4-5-1242/C, GIRIPURAM, TIRUPATHI TOWN, TIRUPATHI MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 2. BHUKYA GURUSWAMY NAIK, S/O. LATE BUKYA DHAVARAIAH NAIK, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 2- 257A, SOCIETY COLONY, MADANAPALLETOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. S V MUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S PRASANTH The Court made the following: 2 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.K.C.Sarala, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 2. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.31 of 2019 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. The 2nd respondent, is the 1st defendant and the present appellant is the 2nd defendant in the suit. The suit was initially filed against the 2nd respondent by the 1st respondent, in which subsequently, the appellant herein was impleaded as the 2nd defendant. 3. The suit for specific performance of contract was based on the alleged agreement of sale dated 05.05.2017, said to have been executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 1st respondent. The plaintiff/1st respondent also filed I.A.No.452 of 2019 for grant of temporary injunction. The said application has been allowed on 04.04.2025, granting temporary injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the petition schedule property till the disposal of the suit. 4. Challenging the order dated 04.04.2025, the present C.M.A has been filed. 3 5. The 2nd respondent (1st defendant in the suit) was set ex parte, before the Trial Court. In this Court also, the notice was issued at the registered address but the same has been returned, with an endorsement ‘addressee left without instructions’ and to that effect the memo has been filed by the appellant. The 2nd respondent has also not joined the appellant in challenging the impugned order. In view thereof, we dispense with any further notice to the 2nd respondent(1st defendant in the suit). 6. With the consent of the parties counsels, this appeal is being decided finally at this stage. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant purchased the suit schedule property vide registered sale deed from Mansi Finance Company, Chennai, on 25.09.2019. The appellant’s vendor had purchased it from the 2nd respondent (1st defendant) on 21.06.2017. It is also his case that after purchase, some constructions were raised and the appellant has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. He further submits that the alleged agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff from the same 1st defendant (2nd respondent) is dated 05.05.2017. But he submits that the stamp paper on which the said agreement of sale is written and filed 4 before the trial Court along with the plaint bears the stamp paper Nos.AD 530485 and AD 530484. Referring to page Nos.139 and 140 of the memorandum of the appeal, he submits that those two non-judicial stamp papers, were issued to the stamp vendor namely M.Devendra Chetty on 16.03.2017 by the Government of A.P, Registration and Stamps Department. However, the agreement of sale, mentions the name of the stamp vendor as D.Venkatadri. Consequently, the submission, is that the agreement of sale is highly doubtful and appears to have been prepared after the date of the sale deed in favour of the appellant. His further submission is that the appellant filed the registered sale deeds before the learned Trial Court and though those find mention in the Appendix of Evidence, but the learned trial Court proceeded on the wrong assumption that the alleged sale deeds were not filed, which is apparent from para-9 of the judgment. He further submits that in the same paragraph, the learned trial Court has mentioned that the question with respect to the transactions which took place (i.e. in favour of the appellant) subsequent to the filing of the suit, had to be decided after full-fledged trial. Learned counsel submits that the suit was filed on 01.11.2019, whereas the sale deed in favour of the appellant’s vendor is dated 5 21.06.2017 and in favour of the appellant is dated 25.10.2019. So, those transactions are not after filing of the suit, but the trial Court has proceeded on wrong assumption that the transactions in favour of the appellant were subsequent to filing of the suit. 8. He further submits that with respect to the possession of the appellant, various documents including tax receipts, electricity bills etc., were filed before the Court, and were also marked, which is evident from the Appendix of Evidence but those have not been taken into consideration and the finding on possession has been recorded in favour of the plaintiff/1st respondent, simply based on the contents of the agreement of sale, which, was also not marked, before the trial Court. 9. Ms.Sarala, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. She submits that in the agreement of sale, it was clearly mentioned that the possession was handed over to the plaintiff. So, the finding on plaintiff’s possession has been correctly recorded. She further submits that the agreement of sale was filed along with the plaint. Further, the said agreement of sale was impounded and the plaintiff paid the deficit of the stamp duty. In view thereof, she 6 submits that there is no illegality in the order granting temporary injunction, which calls for no interference. 10. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 11. The point for determination is “Whether the order under challenge granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff/1st respondent is legally sustainable?” 12. On consideration of the submissions as also after going through the contents of the impugned order and the documents annexed, we are of the view that the learned trial Court, in passing the temporary injunction has proceeded on assumptions of some facts, which appear not to be correct. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the sale deeds were filed before the Trial Court but the trial Court mentioned that those sale deeds were not filed before the Court, which is evident in para-9 of the impugned order. Further, the learned trial Court has proceeded, on the assumption that the transactions took place in favour of the 2nd defendant/appellant in respect of the petition schedule property after filing of the suit. So, it has been observed that the question with respect to those documents if they are binding or not has to be decided after full-fledged trial. The 7 documents as mentioned were not executed after the institution of the suit. It is admitted to the 1st respondent’s counsel that the suit was filed on 01.11.2019. Whereas, the sale deeds are dated 21.06.2017 and 25.10.2019, which prima facie are of a date prior to institution of the suit. The learned Trial Court also did not take into consideration the documents filed by the appellant(1st defendant) to show his possession and merely based on the contents of the agreement of sale, recorded the finding in favour of the plaintiff/1st respondent on the point of possession, whereas in the sale deed in favour of the appellant delivery of possession was also mentioned to the appellant. 13. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the impugned order deserves interference and the matter requires to be considered and decided afresh by the learned trial Court, in accordance with law. 14. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The order dated 04.04.2025 is set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to decide the application, I.A.No.452 of 2019 in O.S.No.31 of 2019 afresh, in accordance with law, on due consideration of the facts and the material on record with due opportunity to the contesting parties. ` 8 15. Let the decision be taken within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court shall decide I.A. within the aforesaid period. 16. The parties shall maintain status quo till the disposal of I.A.No452 of 2019. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. _____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J __________________________ V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Date: 17.11.2025 Pab 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.219 of 2025 Date:- 17.11.2025 Pab